I disagree with Bud. While the terms are "hypothetical" at this point, the's assume the question is that notice is given and the employer fires the employee immediately with additional pay accrued.
Verizon revolves around an employee voluntarily entering a program. The poster here didn't voluntarily agree to the terms of their termination, they proposed terms that were summarily rejected. Further it held that the standard even if it were a voluntary termination program is who takes the final action, this certainly was the employer in this case which would have made the employee eligible by that standard.
I'm not seeing anything related to Pederson here (nor Bud's quote applying). The person feared that they weren't going to be retained based on things peers told her on the job, so she just stopped coming.
In Palmer, the employer paid out the two weeks notice but told the employee not to come to work. One would argue, that this was agreeing to the employee's resignation. The sense of that decision (though not the point ruled on is that if the employee hadn't been paid for the notice, that would not be a voluntary termination). That's different than my proposed strawman.
If rottbach's, employer gave him the two weeks pay, then one could argue that was just serving out his notice and it's a voluntary quit.

